June 20, 2018, 05:57:36 AM

Author Topic: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?  (Read 340117 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #390 on: August 24, 2014, 04:01:39 PM »
Quote
(In my experience, "Photographic DR" is far more arbitrary, as everyone seems to define it or calculate it in a different way...

The definition and method of calculation is taught to every single person who earns a degree in photography in the country. A very large number of printers and scientists know it as well. It is not arbitrary.

And yet...it still hasn't been DEFINED. What, exactly, is the calculation you use to determine Photographic DR? Or is the calculation simply: "Shoot a step wedge and judge visually whether you have X stops or Y stops of DR?"

I'm sorry, but a simple visual judgement is insufficient. Your ignoring read noise, which you cannot do. (Well, you can...it just isn't valid...not for electronic sensors.)

Indeed, all measurements in a digital sensor contains noise. The luminance range that is detectable depends on the amount of noise present, discussing DR in digital photography is discussing noise which boils down to statistics. Until dtaylor understand that he would best avoid these discussion and instead go hide under a bridge but he doesn't have that much sense so it is pointless to waste energy on him.

Yeah...probably right.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #390 on: August 24, 2014, 04:01:39 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22692
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #391 on: August 24, 2014, 04:16:14 PM »
I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.

Can you please list the features that make a camera like the Sony A5100 so technologically superior to a top of the line Canon crop camera.  Feel free to discuss advantages in areas like native lens selection, AF speed, frame rate, focus tracking of moving subjects, integration with a radio-controlled off-camera flash system, etc. 

If you mean sensor and not camera, please say so.  As I've said repeatedly, people don't buy bare silicon sensors to take pictures, they buy cameras.
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #392 on: August 24, 2014, 04:17:40 PM »
I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.

Can you please list the features that make a camera like the Sony A5100 so technologically superior to a top of the line Canon crop camera.  Feel free to discuss advantages in areas like native lens selection, AF speed, frame rate, focus tracking of moving subjects, integration with a radio-controlled off-camera flash system, etc. 

If you mean sensor and not camera, please say so.  As I've said repeatedly, people don't buy bare silicon sensors to take pictures, they buy cameras.

This I totally agree with. At the moment, Sony "cameras" are not better than Canon's...and their "RAW" image format is a joke.

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3588
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #393 on: August 24, 2014, 04:22:37 PM »
What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ?

Of all the things that I have read of yours on CR that is the most extraordinary to date.

Demanding better IQ. Have you actually used a camera with the Sony Exmor sensor ? I know nothing about astrophotography, or whatever it's called; perhaps there is a benefit there, but to 'demand better IQ' with the exceptional sensors we now have........

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #394 on: August 24, 2014, 04:32:20 PM »
What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ?

Of all the things that I have read of yours on CR that is the most extraordinary to date.

Demanding better IQ. Have you actually used a camera with the Sony Exmor sensor ? I know nothing about astrophotography, or whatever it's called; perhaps there is a benefit there, but to 'demand better IQ' with the exceptional sensors we now have........

I don't believe the sensors we have now are "exceptional". I believe they are "good", but relative to what's possible, they are not exceptional. They may have been exceptional five years ago...but, that was five years ago. Things change. Things ARE relative. And as I said (which you did not quote)...I'm not just speaking about low ISO DR. It's possible to have more high ISO DR, it's possible to have all this, both improved low and high ISO DR, WITH MORE PIXELS.

It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....

Then that is one of the most extraordinary comments I've ever read on these forums to date.

I think I got lost in fighting against DXO and defending Canon all these years, and forgot that I DO WANT BETTER! :P I WANT BETTER! I WANT MORE! I KNOW IT'S POSSIBLE, TOO. I honestly cannot think that I am ALONE on that front. I plain and simply don't even believe it. I think people here will only say they don't want more and better simply to continue defending their preferred brand. It's fine to prefer Canon. I do. I have many reasons for preferring them. However...that is no reason not to demand they give us more. I want D800 level low ISO IQ strait out of camera. I want ML-level high ISO DR strait out of camera. I want 70-80% Q.E. I want 50 megapixels. I can USE every single one of those sensor IQ improvements.

So...honestly...what's wrong with getting vocal about that TO CANON. You don't have to give a crap about any other brand...the point is to stand up and get vocal about your wants TO CANON, so your preferred brand will improve, will start offering you more capability.

xps

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 794
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #395 on: August 24, 2014, 04:59:21 PM »
Looks better now...

I heard an rumor (discussion between some CPS workers), that the sensor could be an updated 70D´s one. With an improved layer concept (not multilayer). Slightly better DR, 1/2 better aperture in noise. Could this be true?
And an better internal jpeg algorithm, to "pimp up" the jpegs electronically
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 05:01:21 PM by xps »

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3588
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #396 on: August 24, 2014, 05:04:21 PM »
It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....

The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce. I would like to see improvements in gradient of clipping to white and black, significantly more DR would speed up my processing.

But to be quite honest, do I want sensor technology to progress to the point where anyone, never mind how unskilled, can press the shutter and produce a perfectly post processed picture irrespective of the mistakes they make in exposure ? No I don't.

Despite all the advancement in digital imaging, photographic skill still plays a major role; I'm sure that that challenge to improve and advance is what many enjoy. However it is gradually being whittled down by technology. I just hope it doesn't go altogether.

To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #396 on: August 24, 2014, 05:04:21 PM »

Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2028
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #397 on: August 24, 2014, 05:15:40 PM »
New Battery – LP-E6N

I haven't kept up with the battery changes.  Are the current varients interchangeable and just have different capacities or are they genuinely different?  Is Canon just trying to keep people buying their batteries and away from third parties?

I have, and intend to continue to have, both full frame (5D) and crop bodies but will absolutely demand that they use the same batteries and chargers like my current two do.

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4153
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #398 on: August 24, 2014, 05:30:10 PM »
What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ?

Of all the things that I have read of yours on CR that is the most extraordinary to date.

Demanding better IQ. Have you actually used a camera with the Sony Exmor sensor ? I know nothing about astrophotography, or whatever it's called; perhaps there is a benefit there, but to 'demand better IQ' with the exceptional sensors we now have........

Ha! This is extraordinary. There are a grand total of 8,132 members of this forum. This particular thread has drawn a total of just under 18,000 view and 402 replies.

That's good for an internet forum, but hardly significant in terms of customers. And, don't assume that a significant percentage of these forum participants agree with the premise. Please, let's have a little perspective here.

There are maybe what? – a dozen persons on this forum who consistently comment on and claim dissatisfaction with dynamic range from Canon sensors.

Would I mind having improvements in sensors? No, of course, not. Do I think the differences between brands of sensors has any real impact on the quality of my photographs, absolutely not.

Would I want Canon to divert research and development dollars away from other improvements to focus exclusively on sensor improvement? No way!

In fact, in thinking about features that would make be consider buying a new camera, an extra stop of dynamic range wouldn't even make it into the top 20.

The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce... To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision. To take the basic elements of a photograph and wrestle a compelling image from a mechanical box. 

Stephen Shore described the basic elements of all photographs: flatness, frame, time and focus. John Szarkowski talked about: the thing itself, the detail, the frame, time and vantage point.

Both essentially are describing the same things. These are what make photographs photographs and until I master each of these, I'm really not going to worry about minute differences in sensors. I expect it will take me the rest of my life.

So, if others want to start a new grassroots movement to demand more dynamic range in Canon sensors, go ahead, knock yourselves out.

Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2028
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #399 on: August 24, 2014, 05:36:39 PM »
Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision.

That machine's job is to make ME the limitation, not it.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #400 on: August 24, 2014, 05:39:45 PM »
It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....

The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce. I would like to see improvements in gradient of clipping to white and black, significantly more DR would speed up my processing.

But to be quite honest, do I want sensor technology to progress to the point where anyone, never mind how unskilled, can press the shutter and produce a perfectly post processed picture irrespective of the mistakes they make in exposure ? No I don't.

Despite all the advancement in digital imaging, photographic skill still plays a major role; I'm sure that that challenge to improve and advance is what many enjoy. However it is gradually being whittled down by technology. I just hope it doesn't go altogether.

To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

So, if I understand what your saying...you purposely want to keep photography "elite" and inaccessible to novices or those you consider "not photographers"? Even if it means the same technology that makes photography more accessible could also give you the means to improve your own photography?

That is honestly not the reason I expected...  :o Not even remotely.

I completely disagree that photography is being "whittled down by technology." Technology does not make someone a photographer. Technology enables real photographers, gives them more and better tools to create amazing works. We could have technology ten times better than we do today, and putting such a camera in the hands of someone who is not a photographer will NEVER result in a photo where the user "can press the shutter and produce a perfectly post processed picture irrespective of the mistakes they make in exposure." It has nothing to do with mistakes when it's an actual photographer who understands how to choose the right exposure.

Photography will still always be about the photographer. You will still always have to post process, and you will have to know how, to have the skill to fully extract the most quality. You will always have to pay attention to lighting, you will always have to choose the right exposure, you will always have to pick the right subject. Improvements in technology benefit the real photographer far more than they will ever benefit the non-photographer.

To wish technology would stop progressing so a novice cannot create a good photo is...quite frankly...incredibly selfish and egotistical. I'm honestly surprised by that answer.  :-\

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #401 on: August 24, 2014, 05:44:10 PM »
Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision.

That machine's job is to make ME the limitation, not it.

Totally agree. I don't want to be limited by technology.

Old Sarge

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 231
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #402 on: August 24, 2014, 05:54:48 PM »
New Battery – LP-E6N

I haven't kept up with the battery changes.  Are the current varients interchangeable and just have different capacities or are they genuinely different?  Is Canon just trying to keep people buying their batteries and away from third parties?

I have, and intend to continue to have, both full frame (5D) and crop bodies but will absolutely demand that they use the same batteries and chargers like my current two do.

This one bugs me.  I am hoping that the E6N designations means that it is interchangeable with the E6, otherwise I will have to carry BP-511 (for 40D...wife's 30D will be given to my son), LP-E6 for 7D, and LP-E6N for the 7DII/X  if I decide to purchase it.  Not a deal breaker....but annoying.
The Old Sarge

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #402 on: August 24, 2014, 05:54:48 PM »

Famateur

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 710
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #403 on: August 24, 2014, 06:00:36 PM »
To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

I like the spirit of this observation. Knowing that the average shmoe isn't going to bracket/blend a high dynamic range scene means there's still something special when one does it, and does it well.

Thankfully, the soul of a photograph is its composition, lighting, feel -- things that technology will likely never replace...



While digesting all these pages of discussion on dynamic range, I've decided to share my own two cents (if even worth that much):

I recently returned from a short family vacation to Arches National Park. Being a vacation first and photo-op second, I wasn't able to be at Landscape Arch for the light I wanted, but since I was there, I still wanted to get some decent photos with my 70D.

The sky was mostly full of heavy black rain clouds and some sprinkling, but there was a hole in those clouds nearly over the sun, so despite the cloud cover, it was bright -- right behind the arch. I quickly set my camera to a three-shot bracket and fired away, planning to blend them in post. I used the same strategy the night before as the sun set behind us up at Delicate Arch.

Back home with the RAW files in Lightroom, I started to do a little touching-up of the three shots before blending them, starting with the under-exposed shot first. Just for the hay of it, I decided to fiddle with the file as if I didn't have two other exposures to blend. The result? I actually skipped the other two exposures! Sure I might go ahead and take the time to blend them to see if I can get a better result, but I was amazed at what I was able to pull out of the one dark file with only modest noise reduction (Luminance NR at 26).

Here's a before and after (keep in mind I'm not a pro -- just a family guy with a 70D):


Landscape Arch Before-And-After (from underexposed file of three-shot bracket)

Anyway, for this non-pro, I was pleasantly surprised with what I could do, even if Canon is "behind" in dynamic range, latitude, whatever... Had I only shot JPEG, yeah, it would have been a throw-away, but isn't this why we shoot RAW to begin with?

PS: What looks like a halo along the top of the arch is some chromatic aberration (nearly silhouetted arch against bright clouds) "removed" by Lightroom. The color is gone, but I'm not sure how to eliminate the halo effect without resorting to some tedious Photoshopping.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #404 on: August 24, 2014, 06:10:13 PM »
@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #404 on: August 24, 2014, 06:10:13 PM »